This dataset contains a listing of incorporated places (cities and towns) and counties within the United States including the GNIS code, FIPS code, name, entity type and primary point (location) for the entity. The types of entities listed in this dataset are based on codes provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, and include the following: C1 - An active incorporated place that does not serve as a county subdivision equivalent; C2 - An active incorporated place legally coextensive with a county subdivision but treated as independent of any county subdivision; C3 - A consolidated city; C4 - An active incorporated place with an alternate official common name; C5 - An active incorporated place that is independent of any county subdivision and serves as a county subdivision equivalent; C6 - An active incorporated place that partially is independent of any county subdivision and serves as a county subdivision equivalent or partially coextensive with a county subdivision but treated as independent of any county subdivision; C7 - An incorporated place that is independent of any county; C8 - The balance of a consolidated city excluding the separately incorporated place(s) within that consolidated government; C9 - An inactive or nonfunctioning incorporated place; H1 - An active county or statistically equivalent entity; H4 - A legally defined inactive or nonfunctioning county or statistically equivalent entity; H5 - A census areas in Alaska, a statistical county equivalent entity; and H6 - A county or statistically equivalent entity that is areally coextensive or governmentally consolidated with an incorporated place, part of an incorporated place, or a consolidated city.

This dataset contains geographic information concerning cities and towns in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. A city or town is a place with a recorded population, usually with at least one central area that provides commercial activities. Cities are generally larger than towns; no distinction is made between cities and towns in this map layer.

The Counties dataset was updated on October 31, 2023 from the United States Census Bureau (USCB) and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are mostly as of January 1, 2023, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS).

This dataset is part of the Geographical repository maintained by Opendatasoft. This dataset contains data for counties and equivalent entities in United States of America. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities.Processors and tools are using this data. Enhancements Add ISO 3166-3 codes. Simplify geometries to provide better performance across the services. Add administrative hierarchy.

Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees -- a pillar of urban forests -- improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about urban forests as ecosystems, particularly their spatial composition, nativity statuses, biodiversity, and tree health. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities. The data comes from tree inventories conducted at the level of cities and/or neighborhoods. Each data sheet includes detailed information on tree location, species, nativity status (whether a tree species is naturally occurring or introduced), health, size, whether it is in a park or urban area, and more (comprising 28 standardized columns per datasheet). This dataset could be analyzed in combination with citizen-science datasets on bird, insect, or plant biodiversity; social and demographic data; or data on the physical environment. Urban forests offer a rare opportunity to intentionally design biodiverse, heterogenous, rich ecosystems. Methods See eLife manuscript for full details. Below, we provide a summary of how the dataset was collected and processed.

Data Acquisition We limited our search to the 150 largest cities in the USA (by census population). To acquire raw data on street tree communities, we used a search protocol on both Google and Google Datasets Search (https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/). We first searched the city name plus each of the following: street trees, city trees, tree inventory, urban forest, and urban canopy (all combinations totaled 20 searches per city, 10 each in Google and Google Datasets Search). We then read the first page of google results and the top 20 results from Google Datasets Search. If the same named city in the wrong state appeared in the results, we redid the 20 searches adding the state name. If no data were found, we contacted a relevant state official via email or phone with an inquiry about their street tree inventory. Datasheets were received and transformed to .csv format (if they were not already in that format). We received data on street trees from 64 cities. One city, El Paso, had data only in summary format and was therefore excluded from analyses.

Data Cleaning All code used is in the zipped folder Data S5 in the eLife publication. Before cleaning the data, we ensured that all reported trees for each city were located within the greater metropolitan area of the city (for certain inventories, many suburbs were reported - some within the greater metropolitan area, others not). First, we renamed all columns in the received .csv sheets, referring to the metadata and according to our standardized definitions (Table S4). To harmonize tree health and condition data across different cities, we inspected metadata from the tree inventories and converted all numeric scores to a descriptive scale including “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”, and “dead/dying”. Some cities included only three points on this scale (e.g., “good”, “poor”, “dead/dying”) while others included five (e.g., “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”). Second, we used pandas in Python (W. McKinney & Others, 2011) to correct typos, non-ASCII characters, variable spellings, date format, units used (we converted all units to metric), address issues, and common name format. In some cases, units were not specified for tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height; we determined the units based on typical sizes for trees of a particular species. Wherever diameter was reported, we assumed it was DBH. We standardized health and condition data across cities, preserving the highest granularity available for each city. For our analysis, we converted this variable to a binary (see section Condition and Health). We created a column called “location_type” to label whether a given tree was growing in the built environment or in green space. All of the changes we made, and decision points, are preserved in Data S9. Third, we checked the scientific names reported using gnr_resolve in the R library taxize (Chamberlain & Szöcs, 2013), with the option Best_match_only set to TRUE (Data S9). Through an iterative process, we manually checked the results and corrected typos in the scientific names until all names were either a perfect match (n=1771 species) or partial match with threshold greater than 0.75 (n=453 species). BGS manually reviewed all partial matches to ensure that they were the correct species name, and then we programmatically corrected these partial matches (for example, Magnolia grandifolia-- which is not a species name of a known tree-- was corrected to Magnolia grandiflora, and Pheonix canariensus was corrected to its proper spelling of Phoenix canariensis). Because many of these tree inventories were crowd-sourced or generated in part through citizen science, such typos and misspellings are to be expected. Some tree inventories reported species by common names only. Therefore, our fourth step in data cleaning was to convert common names to scientific names. We generated a lookup table by summarizing all pairings of common and scientific names in the inventories for which both were reported. We manually reviewed the common to scientific name pairings, confirming that all were correct. Then we programmatically assigned scientific names to all common names (Data S9). Fifth, we assigned native status to each tree through reference to the Biota of North America Project (Kartesz, 2018), which has collected data on all native and non-native species occurrences throughout the US states. Specifically, we determined whether each tree species in a given city was native to that state, not native to that state, or that we did not have enough information to determine nativity (for cases where only the genus was known). Sixth, some cities reported only the street address but not latitude and longitude. For these cities, we used the OpenCageGeocoder (https://opencagedata.com/) to convert addresses to latitude and longitude coordinates (Data S9). OpenCageGeocoder leverages open data and is used by many academic institutions (see https://opencagedata.com/solutions/academia). Seventh, we trimmed each city dataset to include only the standardized columns we identified in Table S4. After each stage of data cleaning, we performed manual spot checking to identify any issues.

This dataset contains information about the demographics of all US cities and census-designated places with a population greater or equal to 65,000. This data comes from the US Census Bureau's 2015 American Community Survey. This product uses the Census Bureau Data API but is not endorsed or certified by the Census Bureau.

All cities with a population > 1000 or seats of adm div (ca 80.000)Sources and ContributionsSources : GeoNames is aggregating over hundred different data sources. Ambassadors : GeoNames Ambassadors help in many countries. Wiki : A wiki allows to view the data and quickly fix error and add missing places. Donations and Sponsoring : Costs for running GeoNames are covered by donations and sponsoring.Enrichment:add country name

U.S. Counties - Generalized provides 2020 U.S. Census codes and population information, and generalized county (or county equivalent) boundaries to improve draw performance and be used effectively at a national level.

U.S. Counties - Generalized represents the counties (or county equivalents) of the United States in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. U.S. Counties - Generalized are polygons containing population totals from the 2020 Census.The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation.The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities.The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are as of January 1, 2019, primarily as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS).

This data collection provides statistics gathered from a variety of federal agencies and national associations. Demographic, economic, and governmental data from both the federal government and private agencies are presented to enable multiarea comparisons as well as single-area profiles. Current estimates and benchmark census results are included. Data are available for five types of geographic coverage: (1) Metro Areas data cover 249 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), 17 consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs), 54 primary metropolitan statistical areas (PSMAs), and 16 New England county metropolitan areas (NECMAs). Metro Areas data include the following general subjects: area and population, households, vital statistics, health, education, crime, housing, money income, personal income, civilian labor force, employment, construction, commercial office space, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, service industries, banking, federal funds and grants, and government employment. There are 14 parts for Metro Areas. (2) State Metro/Nonmetro data cover the United States, the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan portions of these areas. State Metro/Nonmetro data include most of the subjects listed for Metro Areas. There are six parts for State Metro/Nonmetro. (3) Metro Counties data cover 336 metropolitan areas and their component counties and include topics identical to those presented in the State Metro/Nonmetro data. Six parts are supplied for Metro Counties. (4) Metro Central Cities data cover 336 metropolitan areas and their 522 central cities and 336 outside central cities portions. Metro Central Cities variables are limited to 13 items, which include area and population, money income, civilian labor force, and retail trade. There is one part for Metro Central Cities. (5) States data cover the United States, the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and census regions and divisions. States data include the same items as the Metro Areas data, plus information on social welfare programs, geography and environment, domestic travel and parks, gross state product, poverty, wealth holders, business, research and development, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, minerals and mining, transportation, communications, energy, state government, federal government, and elections. There are 101 parts for States.

This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are mostly as of January 1, 2023, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). These data have been made publicly available from an authoritative source other than this Atlas and data should be obtained directly from that source for any re-use. See the original metadata from the authoritative source for more information about these data and use limitations. The authoritative source of these data can be found at the following location: US Census TIGER/Line 2022

Update NotesMar 16 2024, remove spaces in the file and folder names.Mar 31 2024, delete the underscore in the city names with a space (such as San Francisco) in the '02_TransCAD_results' folder to ensure correct data loading by TransCAD (software version: 9.0).Aug 31 2024, add the 'cityname_link_LinkFlows.csv' file in the '02_TransCAD_results' folder to match the link from input data and the link from TransCAD results (LinkFlows) with the same Link_ID.IntroductionThis is a unified and validated traffic dataset for 20 US cities. There are 3 folders for each city.01 Input datathe initial network data obtained from OpenStreetMap (OSM)the visualization of the OSM dataprocessed node / link / od data02 TransCAD results (software version: 9.0)cityname.dbd : geographical network database of the city supported by TransCAD (version 9.0)cityname_link.shp / cityname_node.shp : network data supported by GIS software, which can be imported into TransCAD manually. Then the corresponding '.dbd' file can be generated for TransCAD with a version lower than 9.0od.mtx : OD matrix supported by TransCADLinkFlows.bin / LinkFlows.csv : traffic assignment results by TransCADcityname_link_LinkFlows.csv: the input link attributes with the traffic assignment results by TransCADShortestPath.mtx / ue_travel_time.csv : the traval time (min) between OD pairs by TransCAD03 AequilibraE results (software version: 0.9.3)cityname.shp : shapefile network data of the city support by QGIS or other GIS softwareod_demand.aem : OD matrix supported by AequilibraEnetwork.csv : the network file used for traffic assignment in AequilibraEassignment_result.csv : traffic assignment results by AequilibraEPublicationXu, X., Zheng, Z., Hu, Z. et al. (2024). A unified dataset for the city-scale traffic assignment model in 20 U.S. cities. Sci Data 11, 325. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03149-8Usage NotesIf you use this dataset in your research or any other work, please cite both the dataset and paper above.A brief introduction about how to use this dataset can be found in GitHub. More detailed illustration for compiling the traffic dataset on AequilibraE can be referred to GitHub code or Colab code.ContactIf you have any inquiries, please contact Xiaotong Xu (email: kid-a.xu@connect.polyu.hk).

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the data for the Towns County, GA population pyramid, which represents the Towns County population distribution across age and gender, using estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates. It lists the male and female population for each age group, along with the total population for those age groups. Higher numbers at the bottom of the table suggest population growth, whereas higher numbers at the top indicate declining birth rates. Furthermore, the dataset can be utilized to understand the youth dependency ratio, old-age dependency ratio, total dependency ratio, and potential support ratio.

Key observations

• Youth dependency ratio, which is the number of children aged 0-14 per 100 persons aged 15-64, for Towns County, GA, is 18.7.
• Old-age dependency ratio, which is the number of persons aged 65 or over per 100 persons aged 15-64, for Towns County, GA, is 65.3.
• Total dependency ratio for Towns County, GA is 84.0.
• Potential support ratio, which is the number of youth (working age population) per elderly, for Towns County, GA is 1.5.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates.

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group for the Towns County population analysis. Total expected values are 18 and are define above in the age groups section.
• Population (Male): The male population in the Towns County for the selected age group is shown in the following column.
• Population (Female): The female population in the Towns County for the selected age group is shown in the following column.
• Total Population: The total population of the Towns County for the selected age group is shown in the following column.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Towns County Population by Age. You can refer the same here

This dataset includes WIC households enrolled during state fiscal year (SFY) 2024 located in counties and municipalities with populations greater than 1,000 inhabitants. The total value of benefits redeemed by each household is aggregated for SFY 2024. Population values may be blank if a household does not fall within a municipality with a population greater than 1,000 inhabitants per United States Census Bureau data. Municipality names may be blank if a household does not fall within a municipal boundary or a census-designated place. County fields may be blank if the household does not fall within a municipal boundary as defined by the United States Census Bureau.

The Census data utilized for developing the Community Layer used 2010 TIGER/Line shapefile datasets (TIGER = Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing). TIGER/Line shapefiles are available for free download from the US Census Bureau and include various legal and statistical geographic areas for which the Census tabulates data. The shapefiles are designed to be used in a GIS environment, with the ability to directly link the geographic areas to Census data via a unique GEOID number.The following TIGER/Line datasets should be used: - Counties and Equivalent Entities –primary legal divisions within each state (counties, parishes, etc)- County Subdivisions –includes both legal areas (Minor Civil Divisions or MCDs) and various statistical areas- Places –includes both legal areas (Incorporated Places) and statistical areas (Census Designated Places or CDPs)- Blocks –the smallest geographical area for which Census population counts are recorded; blocks never cross boundaries of any entity for which the Census Bureau tabulates data, including counties, county subdivisions, places, and American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian (AIANNH) areas- American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian (AIANNH) AreasExtracting and Formatting CIS DataA key component of the community layer is the ability to link CIS information spatially. Data from CIS cannot directly be joined with Census data. The two datasets have community name discrepancies which impede an exact match. Therefore, CIS data needs to be formatted to match Census community names. A custom report can be obtained from CIS to include a CID number, Community Name, County, State, Community Status, and Tribal status for all CIS records. Make sure all CID numbers are six digits and you follow the CIS community naming convention outlined in Table 4.2.1.1 in the Community Layer Update Technical Guide 20131206. Converting the CIS name“ADDISON, VILLAGE OF” to “ADDISON TOWN”involves removing unneeded spaces, comma, and preposition to make the join successful to the Census data. Using a comprehensive report at a national level gains efficiencies as bulk edits can be made. Data for each state should be extracted as needed by separating the CIS data into each type of community corresponding to the Census geography layers used, and a new JoinID column (e.g. ADDISON TOWN) can be created for each dataset allowing the CIS data to be joined to the Census data.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 6 cities in the Queens County, NY by American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Native American Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Queens County, NY by their American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Native American Population: The Native American population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Native American. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Queens County Native American Population: This tells us how much of the entire Queens County, NY Native American population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 6 cities in the Colbert County, AL by Asian population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Asian Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Colbert County, AL by their Asian population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Asian Population: The Asian population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Asian. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Colbert County Asian Population: This tells us how much of the entire Colbert County, AL Asian population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 4 cities in the Dunn County, ND by White population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by White Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Dunn County, ND by their White population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• White Population: The White population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as White. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Dunn County White Population: This tells us how much of the entire Dunn County, ND White population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

This is the complete dataset for the 500 Cities project 2019 release. This dataset includes 2017, 2016 model-based small area estimates for 27 measures of chronic disease related to unhealthy behaviors (5), health outcomes (13), and use of preventive services (9). Data were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. The project was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. It represents a first-of-its kind effort to release information on a large scale for cities and for small areas within those cities. It includes estimates for the 500 largest US cities and approximately 28,000 census tracts within these cities. These estimates can be used to identify emerging health problems and to inform development and implementation of effective, targeted public health prevention activities. Because the small area model cannot detect effects due to local interventions, users are cautioned against using these estimates for program or policy evaluations. Data sources used to generate these measures include Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data (2017, 2016), Census Bureau 2010 census population data, and American Community Survey (ACS) 2013-2017, 2012-2016 estimates. Because some questions are only asked every other year in the BRFSS, there are 7 measures (all teeth lost, dental visits, mammograms, pap tests, colorectal cancer screening, core preventive services among older adults, and sleep less than 7 hours) from the 2016 BRFSS that are the same in the 2019 release as the previous 2018 release. More information about the methodology can be found at www.cdc.gov/500cities.

This data set provides a list of authoritative names and codes for the municipalities of New Jersey from State and Federal government agencies.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 2 cities in the Towns County, GA by Multi-Racial Some Other Race (SOR) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Multi-Racial Other Race Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Towns County, GA by their Multi-Racial Some Other Race (SOR) population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Multi-Racial Other Race Population: The Multi-Racial Other Race population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Multi-Racial Other Race. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Towns County Multi-Racial Other Race Population: This tells us how much of the entire Towns County, GA Multi-Racial Other Race population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.